Skip to main content
Normal View

Special Committee Misuse of Drugs Bill, 1973 debate -
Wednesday, 18 Feb 1976

SECTION 7.

I move amendment No. 38:

In page 7, line 43, after " irresponsible manner " to insert " or in any way which could facilitate the misuse of drugs ".

Under section 7 special directions prohibiting prescribing, etc., of controlled drugs in certain cases, subsection (i) should read:

If the Minister believes that a practitioner is or has been, after the commencement of this section, prescribing, administering or supplying, or authorising the administration or supply of any controlled drug in an irresponsible manner, or in any way which could facilitate misuse of drugs, subject to the provisions of this Act, he may give a direction in respect of the practitioner prohibiting him prescribing, administering or supplying or authorising the administration or supply of such controlled drugs as may be specified in the direction.

I have tabled this amendment because of the vagueness in the definition of " irresponsible manner ". I would like it to be more clearly spelled out, " irresponsible manner or in any way which could facilitate the misuse of drugs ". I would be interested in the Minister's comments as to whether he is satisfied that the " irresponsible manner " is strong enough and a watertight definition.

Would the Deputy explain why he proposes the amendment? Perhaps then we might——

It may be superfluous to add these words. " Irresponsible manner " covers practically everything.

Anyone who facilitates the misuse of drugs is irresponsible to me.

There is the example of a doctor who will prescribe a controlled drug to a patient and the patient pushes or sells the drug for some exhorbitant figure. Under Deputy Byrne's amendment he could be deemed to be responsible. I think " irresponsible manner " as described in section 7 would give the Minister for Health ample power to deal with such a case.

I am not a lawyer but as a lay person I wonder how would a judge define " irresponsible manner " in connection with prescribing of drugs. It is only in that regard that I would ask the Minister if he is happy that " irresponsible " would be sufficient to stand up in court. It is only for that reason that I tabled this amendment.

The Attorney General advises this phrase as being all-embracing.

Could I ask the Minister, in view of the diminished doubt that I now have whether he would have second consultations that " irresponsible " would be sufficient in the context of technicality of this Bill?

I am happy that it covers all sorts of eventualities.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 39.

In page 7, after line 53, to insert a new subsection as follows:

" (3) The Minister shall cause notice of any special direction given by him under subsection (1) of this section to be published in the Iris Oifigiúil.”

This is included in section 8 of the Bill, subsection (11), towards the end of it:

he shall in addition cause to be published in Iris Oifigiúil a copy of the direction.

On top of page 10.

It goes with the same qualifications that I have given in respect of the last reference we had to Iris Oifigiúil.

I can take it from the Minister, then, that any directive issued by him under section 7 will automatically be published in Iris Oifigiúil.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 40:

In page 8, lines 12 to 14, to delete subsection (7).

This is consequential on amendment No. 16.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, put and agreed to.
Top
Share